The presiding judge, Maria Millán Gisbert, decided that the video the two journalists had uploaded to YouTube last February, ‘El major robatori de la història de Catalunya[8]‘ (Greatest theft in the history of Catalonia) [ca], which strongly criticized the lack of transparency in public healthcare financing, was an act of libel against Mr. Via.

[9]

Poster from before the sentence, supporting the two journalists, editors of the magazine “Cafè amb Llet”.

Since February, when Sibina and Dante published the video, several high-profile figures who were referenced – like Ramon Bagó[10] [es], Carles Manté[11] [es] or Josep Prats[12] [es] – have been implicated in alleged cases of corruption in the public healthcare system. Some of the more grievous accusations expressed in the Cafè amb Llet video have already been independently investigated and confirmed, but none of the men have been brought to trial yet.

Even though the video didn't levy any concrete accusations against Mr. Via, Sibina and Dante did reference an article[13] [es] Via had published in El País, in which he argued that regulations on the distribution of public money complicates management of the healthcare system – an article they described as “shameful”.

In the video, Ms. Sibina addressed Mr. Via directly: “Maybe it would be more comfortable for you to have tax dollars deposited right into a private back account in Liechenstein?”

She referenced, “people like you [Mr. Via], Bagó, Manté [both now implicated in corruption charges] and so many others who have gotten rich at the cost of tanking our healthcare system.”

According to the judge, this constituted a baseless accusation, and therefore libel, against Mr. Via.

The sentence makes clear that “this can no more be considered an opinion” and therefore is not protected under freedom of expression, “but rather an attribution of facts that would not be protected by freedom of expression, but rather freedom of information.” However, the sentence also made clear that freedom of information does not apply in this case because the magazine's editors did not provide a legitimate basis for their claims against the senior healthcare official.

In reaction to the sentence, the Cafè amb Llet editors have uploaded a new video[16] [ca] to YouTube, explaining their understanding of the situation. The 10,000 euro fine not only endangers the viability of their publication, but also their personal finances. Ms Sibina, a nurse, and Dante, who receives his salary from the magazine, are a couple and publish the magazine from their home[17] [ca].

This may help explain the apparently “amateur” style of Dante's and Sibina's video, which resembles more closely “investigative citizen journalism” than the kind of content produced by mainstream media outlets. Sibina and Dante did not study journalism and did not had any previous professional experience as journalists before founding the magazine Cafè amb Llet. They cannot afford a legal advisor and did not take any precautions to avoid being accused of libel.

Asked whether they feel identified with the “citizen journalism” label, Dante reflects: “I don't know how to name what we have done […] I don't know if what we have done is journalism. I know it had to be done”.

The question, however, is not whether the Cafè amb Llet editors’ accusation against Mr. Via actually constitute a form of libel – that is up to the judges – but rather, if Via's lawsuit and the subsequent fine were meant to impede the diffusion of information and questions that are relevant to Catalan society, rather than protect Mr. Via's reputation.

In the wake of rising separatism, Catalonia's President, Artur Mas has called for early elections on November 25. He is campaigning on the notion[18] [ca] that his political formation, CiU, needs an absolute majority to effectively fight for Catalan independence. CiU is Catalonia's largest party and closely tied to many of the high-profile figures implicated in these cases of corruption.

Sibina and Dante, who had previously highlighted[19] [ca] perceived attempts to impede their investigative work, have argued that Mr. Via's ultimate goal was not to protect his honor:

It surprised us that Mr. Via himself brought the lawsuit… It would not have been suspicious if other high-profile figures in the video raised the case, since we had actually questioned their role in the disappearance of public funds.

Mr. Josep Maria Via has been, up until a few weeks ago, a close colleague of Bagó at Barcelona MAR Health Park Consortium's administrative council, which is an implicated institution in Bagó's suspiciously received multimillion-euro contracts.

Mr. Via has been a partner in various companies with Josep Prat, the same man who has been implicated for curiously paying Carles Manté 700,000 euro. Is Via defending his honor or is he really working to conceal shadowy dealings of his colleagues?